|
Replace Children with Controls. I just knocked this snippet up in the CP editor.
|
|
|
|
|
Mission Done! Thanks a lot 
|
|
|
|
|
No problem. The key to this trick is the fact that your control could be nested inside any one of a number of control containers - this recursive method is a handy way to iterate over a form and find ALL instances of a particular type.
|
|
|
|
|
It's Controls[^], not Children, in .Net. But yes, this is roughly what I just posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - I just knocked this up in the CP editor.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I've read this whole thread and you're horribly confused about classes and instances. Your user name indicates you come from non-class-based procedural languages, and perhaps you need to keep the Object Oriented chapter of your C# book open while you learn!
The failed code that you are trying here is trying to find a type, and create a new instance of that type. Activator.CreateInstance(sometype) is logically equivalent to new sometype(), and in fact the snippet you posted can be written exactly as
PictureBox picture = new pictureBox99.BackgroundImage();
picture.BackgroundImage = Resource1.island;
Hopefully you can see why that doesn't work!
You are not trying to create a copy of something whose final type is not known at compile time, which is about the only time I've needed to use reflection based instantiation. No, what you want to do is find all the instances and do the same thing to them:
foreach(Control c in Controls){
PictureBox picture = c as PictureBox;
if(picture != null)
picture.BackgroundImage = Resource1.island;
}
or with Linq:
this.Controls.Select(c => c as PictureBox).Where(c => c != null).ToList().ForEach(pb => pb.BackgroundImage = Resource1.island);
(the ToList being necessary because ForEach isn't defined except on Lists).
|
|
|
|
|
look here:
private void ResetPictureBoxes()
{
pictureBox9.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox40.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox1.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox100.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox101.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox102.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox103.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox104.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox105.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox13.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox14.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox15.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox16.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox17.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox18.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox19.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox2.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox20.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
pictureBox21.BackgroundImage = Resource1.sea;
}
I try your code snippet, too but it didn't work.
private void ResetPictureBoxes()
{
foreach (Control c in this.Controls)
{
PictureBox picture = c as PictureBox;
if (picture != null)
picture.BackgroundImage = Resource1.island;
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Define 'didn't work'.
Are all your picture boxes children of the same control? If so, you should use 'parentOfPBs.Controls' not 'this.Controls'. If not, you will have to traverse the whole control tree; I suggest you do this once and stash them in a list as it can be quite slow on a big form. You can use a standard recursive tree traversal similar to
public static List<T> GetControlsInTree<T>(Control parent) where T: Control {
List<T> result = new List<T>
AddControlsInTree(parent, result);
return result;
}
static void AddControlsInTree<T>(Control parent, List<T> list) where T: Control {
foreach (Control c in parent.Controls){
T t = c as T;
if (t != null) list.Add(t);
AddControlsInTree(c, list);
}
}
You can stash the list of picture boxes after form initialisation (after you call InitializeComponent in the constructor, for example):
List<PictureBox> pictures = GetControlsInTree<PictureBox>(this);
Then you can iterate over them at will:
private void ResetPictureBoxes()
foreach(PictureBox picture in pictures)
picture.BackgroundImage = Resource1.island;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody have a better date time parse algorithm? I've tried DateTime.TryParse, but it doesn't pick up a lot of conditions. For example 1:05P != 1:05PM because it doesn't know what P is.
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's not C#, but take a look at date.js[^]
It's open source, so if you like what you can do in the sandbox on that page, maybe you could hack it to c#. Or join the project. 
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Define 'better'. Date parsing in particular suffers from ambiguity if you try to be too vague (i.e. what date is 6-3? what about 6-3-12?). It's generally better to mandate a format and make users enter in that format.
|
|
|
|
|
Values can have up to 1000.
How to represent numbers up to 1000 within the 2 alphanumeric placeholder?
Eg., 100, 976, 1000 should all be converted to 2 alphanumeric placeholders.
There will be a C# class that converts the values back and forth.
Has anyone had any need to do this in the past?
You can never try. You either do it or you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
No - but it isn't at all difficult.
If you allow A-Z and 0-9 only, you can fit 36 x 36 items in two characters - 1296 different values.
So divide your number into two parts : integer divide by 36, and modulo 36 and use them as an offset into a character wide translation table.
Reassembly is the reversal of disassembly.
[edit]Phrasing change - the original sounded like the table should be two character wide - OriginalGriff[/edit]
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you...
I just came across this. Works like magic!
public String ConvertToBase(int num, int nbase)
{
String chars = "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
if (nbase < 2 || nbase > chars.Length)
return "";
int r;
String newNumber = "";
while (num >= nbase)
{
r = num % nbase;
newNumber = chars[r] + newNumber;
num = num / nbase;
}
newNumber = chars[num] + newNumber;
return newNumber;
}
You can never try. You either do it or you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
A StringBuilder might be a better overall technique if you need more digits in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
You could simplify that quite a bit, assuming you don't plan on increasing the field size later...
const string chars = "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
static readonly int num_chars = chars.Length;
static string NumberToCode(int number)
{
if (number < 0 || number > num_chars * num_chars)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
return chars[number / num_chars].ToString() + chars[number % num_chars];
}
|
|
|
|
|
You only need base 32, so you can throw some letters out. In case there are some letters that you just don't like or something like that.
As a bonus, the math is easier for 32 (not that it matters in this case..)
|
|
|
|
|
In practice, I would probably throw out "O" and "I", possibly "Z" as well just to make it clearer to people reading it.
But then, I try to avoid this kind of thing anyway! 
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
If you convert your numeric values to base 36 you can display the values using two characters.
BDF
I often make very large prints from unexposed film, and every one of them turns out to be a picture of myself as I once dreamed I would be.
-- BillWoodruff
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd use Base-64, but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. I would do the same as well.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
static public string EncodeTo64(string toEncode)
{
byte[] toEncodeAsBytes = System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetBytes(toEncode);
string returnValue = System.Convert.ToBase64String(toEncodeAsBytes);
return returnValue;
}
static public string DecodeFrom64(string encodedData)
{
byte[] encodedDataAsBytes = System.Convert.FromBase64String(encodedData);
string returnValue = System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetString(encodedDataAsBytes);
return returnValue;
}
Base 64 seems to be represented in 4 position format as shown below. What am I missing?
BASE 64:
From Number 0 to Base 64:MA== ~ From Base 64 MA== to Number: 0
From Number 1 to Base 64:MQ== ~ From Base 64 MQ== to Number:1
From Number 2 to Base 64:MG== ~ From Base 64 MG== to Number: 0
From Number 3 to Base 64:MW== ~ From Base 64 MW== to Number:1
From Number 4 to Base 64:NA== ~ From Base 64 NA== to Number:4
From Number 5 to Base 64:NQ== ~ From Base 64 NQ== to Number:5
From Number 6 to Base 64:NG== ~ From Base 64 NG== to Number:4
From Number 7 to Base 64:NW== ~ From Base 64 NW== to Number:5
From Number 8 to Base 64:OA== ~ From Base 64 OA== to Number:8
From Number 9 to Base 64:OQ== ~ From Base 64 OQ== to Number:9
From Number 10 to Base 64:MTA= ~ From Base 64 MTA= to Number:10
From Number 11 to Base 64:MTE= ~ From Base 64 MTE= to Number:11
From Number 12 to Base 64:MTI= ~ From Base 64 MTI= to Number:12
From Number 13 to Base 64:MTM= ~ From Base 64 MTM= to Number:13
Base 36
From Number 71 to Base36:1Z ~ From Base36 1Z to Number:71
From Number 72 to Base36:20 ~ From Base36 20 to Number:72
From Number 73 to Base36:21 ~ From Base36 21 to Number:73
From Number 74 to Base36:22 ~ From Base36 22 to Number:74
From Number 75 to Base36:23 ~ From Base36 23 to Number:75
From Number 76 to Base36:24 ~ From Base36 24 to Number:76
From Number 77 to Base36:25 ~ From Base36 25 to Number:77
From Number 78 to Base36:26 ~ From Base36 26 to Number:78
From Number 79 to Base36:27 ~ From Base36 27 to Number:79
From Number 80 to Base36:28 ~ From Base36 28 to Number:80
From Number 81 to Base36:29 ~ From Base36 29 to Number:81
From Number 82 to Base36:2A ~ From Base36 2A to Number:82
From Number 83 to Base36:2B ~ From Base36 2B to Number:83
From Number 84 to Base36:2C ~ From Base36 2C to Number:84
From Number 85 to Base36:2D ~ From Base36 2D to Number:85
From Number 86 to Base36:2E ~ From Base36 2E to Number:86
From Number 87 to Base36:2F ~ From Base36 2F to Number:87
From Number 88 to Base36:2G ~ From Base36 2G to Number:88
From Number 89 to Base36:2H ~ From Base36 2H to Number:89
From Number 90 to Base36:2I ~ From Base36 2I to Number:90
You can never try. You either do it or you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
That type of Base-64 is for encoding text, not numbers. I meant something like what was posted but with sixty-four digits. Rather than arguing about whether to use Base-32 or Base-36, I'd just use Base-64.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
